SEARCH RECORDS

INTRODUCTION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS
UNTRACED MANUSCRIPTS
SCRIBE B=ADAM PINKHURST
SCRIBE D=JOHN MARCHAUNT
THE HAMMOND SCRIBE
THE “HOOKED-g” SCRIBES
THE PETWORTH SCRIBE
THE BERYN SCRIBE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HOME
initial
A Digital Catalogue of the
Pre-1500 Manuscripts and Incunables of the
Canterbury Tales
Second Edition
MANUSCRIPT:  El
Location:  San Marino, CaliforniaHuntington Library El 26 C 9
☙       ☙       ☙
MANUSCRIPT CONTENTS:
1. “Take thou this treatise thy time therein to use” (DIMEV 5110; David 1995, 315): fol. iir
2. “A Ballad on the House of Vere,” by Rotheley (DIMEV 1762; Piper 1926; Hanna and Edwards 1996): fols. iiv-ivr
3. 6 lines of verse, sixteenth-century: “From Ioue aboue a spendyng breath | ys Lent to vs to Leade oure Lyfe | to Lyue to dye whan hatefull death | shall rydd vs hense. and stynt oure stryfe | My ynward mane to heauenly thyngs wold trade me. | And styll thys fleash: doth euermore dysswade me” (signed “RNORTH”; DIMEV 1468.5; David 1995, 317-18): fol. ivv
4. 6 more lines of verse, in the same hand but different ink: “Retaine, refuse, no frend, no foe | Condeme, alowe, no chance, no choise | your fame, your Life, shall. end, shall growe | no badd, no good, shall pine, reioice | So helpe so hate, mistrust your frend | as blisfull daies your Life may end” (signed “RN”; DIMEV 4470.5): fol. ivv
5. Canterbury Tales; DIMEV 6414): fols. 1r-232v
6. 6 lines of verse, in the same hand as fol. ivv: “thes worldly ioies, that faier in sight apeares | arr Lvring baits, whereto oure minds we cast | thrise blessed they that have repenting yeares | to hate their sinns, and leve their follies past | My in ward mane, to hevenly things wold trade me | But aye this flesh, doth still and still disswade me” (signed “RN”; DIMEV 5622): fol. vr (back flyleaf)
6. 6 lines of verse, in the same hand as fol. ivv: “In triflieng tales, by poets told | whoe spends their time, and beats their braine | and leves goodbookes, yt vertews hold | doth spare the strawe, and spoile the graine | svtch folke build vpp, their howses in the sand | and leves godds trewth, by w[hich] we owght to stand” (signed “RN”; DIMEV 2656): fol. vr (back flyleaf)
7. Table of Contents for CT (early fifteenth century): fol. viiv
8. “Truth,” by Chaucer (DIMEV 1326; added in the fifteenth century: fols. viiir (back flyleaf)
Tale-order: 
a (view in DIMEV): I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Progress of Copying: 
Essentially straightforward, in marked contrast to Hg. CkT does, however, end on fol. 47v, twenty-two lines from the bottom, with the remaining folio (48) in Q [6] left blank, thus leaving open the possibility of adding Gam or some other conclusion to CkT. At the “end” of SqT (fol. 122v), the scribe also leaves thirty-seven blank lines. “The Words of the Host” (L20) begins with no apparent signs of hesitation on the following recto. SNT follows NPT on fol. 185v with no indication of the difficulties that text presented in the production of Hg.
Crosses are placed in the margins in a number of places to indicate misspellings (e.g., V 265, fol. 118r; V 1140, fol. 128r) and missing text. Examples of the latter include fol. 118v, at V 322, where “in” appears beside an “X” in the margin; fol. 122r, at V 641, where the word “hauk” is missing; and fol. 123r, at V 701, where “a word” has been added in the margin and the insertion point marked with hash marks. On fol. 100r, the scribe failed to copy the final word of IV 1046 (“offence”), but it has been added in the margin in what may be the scribe’s small, informal hand. Crosses also occur elsewhere in the MS where corrections appear to have been made (e.g., fol. 40r, I 3713; fol. 41r, I 3807; fol. 147v, VII 390). Some of these marks do not appear to be associated with any visible crux, such those as on fol. 17r, at I 1524, fol. 18v, at I 1679-1680, fol. 21r (I 1895-6), and fol. 23r (I 2094). Dd and Cp bear evidence of similar editorial crux-marking.
At least some glosses appear to have been added after the text was copied, but before the limner added paraphs and champs (since the ink paraphs indicating where these should be placed are executed at the same time as the glosses). On fol. 92v, for example, the glosses are in a lighter, more golden shade of ink than the text. On fol. 130r, there are two glosses: the first is in the same sized hand and color of ink as the text; the second is written smaller and appears lighter.
Changes in the shade of the ink can be detected on fol. 9r, between I 788-789 (from light to dark); between Qq [4] and [5], fols. 32/33 (from a darker to a lighter shade of ink); on fol. 78v, from III 1474-1475 (darker to a lighter shade); on fol. 81v, between III 1703-1704 (dark to light); and fol. 86r from III 2160-2161 (dark to light); ShT is in a lighter shade of ink than the preceding PdT, suggesting at the least a different stint for the two.
Evidence of marginal instructions or notes that have been cropped at the fore-edge appear on fol. 119r (end of Part 1 and beginning of Part 2 in SqT, where an “f” and part of a descender remain); on fol. 148r (end of ShT, beginning of PrT, where “ff” remains); and at the fore-edge of fol. 168r (the opening of MkPro where “ff” survives).
There are numerous corrections by insertion and over erasures, often in a different shade of ink.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION:
Materials:  
Vellum (uterine calf), each bifolium cut from a single skin (Parkes 1995, pp. 42-43). “The text ink is an amorphous transparent organic brown in a clear medium, with no crystalline or particulate matter present” (Cains 1996, p. 128).
Page Size:  
Approximately 39 x 28 cm.
Collation:
iv + 232 + iv: [1-29]8
There are some traces of signatures, severely trimmed, on fol. 81r ([11.1]), fol. 108r (in red; [14].4), fol. 127r ([16].7), fol. 184r ([23].8: appears to have been a catchword), fol. 217r, and fol. 220r (in red).
Format:
Single column. Written space approximately 31.5 x 15.5 cm. Ruled in “a transparent medium stained pink by an organic (crimson) red” (Cains 1996, p. 128), 48 lines per page; double-ruled sides and bottom and at top across the margin for running head; another single vertical rule for outer limit of gloss space in the margin approximately 6 cm from double-ruled lines of the writing space. Pricking for the ruled lines is visible on the fore-edge and at the top and bottom for the double-ruled margins. El has certainly been trimmed at the top and bottom, but apparently very little on the outer edges, with most of the cropping having taken place during the 1802 binding (Cains 1996, p. 137). Hanna (1989, p. 9) hypothesizes “an original page of at least 435 x 285 mm.” See also Parkes 1995.
Hand(s):
Doyle and Parkes’s (1978) “Scribe B.” See Scribe B=Adam Pynkhurst
On fols. 27r, 28r, 29v, 30r, 31r, 31v, 38r, 49r, and 52r are a series of dots (between three and six) looking something like the face of dice. It is conceivable that these are some kind of scribal record-keeping system, recording something like 4d., 3d., 4d., 5d., 4d., 4d., 4d., 3d., 4d., 6d.note Alternatively, it might represent some form of geomancy. Similar marks can be found in Ha⁴, e.g., fol. 88v.
Decoration:
Twenty-three miniatures (pilgrim portraits), seventy-one partial borders, a hierarchy of decorated initials and paraphs. This hierarchy is gloriously illustrated at the opening 130v+131r, in the section of FkT known as “Dorigen’s Complaint.” At the top of the recto, a blue ¶ with red penwork accompanies the running head: “ffrankeleyn.” Each exemplum (thirteen on this page) is introduced by a two-line gold initial on alternating fields of blue with lavender fill and lavender with blue fill (the blue and lavender are accented with white). Other textual divisions on the page are marked with alternating blue paraphs decorated with red penwork or gold paraphs decorated with violet penwork. In the margins, Latin glosses for each of the exempla are accompanied by the same types of paraphs. The decoration is lavish and dense, and yet nothing seems crowded as the result of the generous provision for the manuscript’s mise-en-page. Hanna aptly describes the ordinatio in El as “a kind of opulent overkill” (1989, p. 11; see further Scott 1996, 2:140-143; Scott 1995; Emmerson 1995; and for a discussion of the pigments see Cains 1996, pp. 128-9).
Binding:
After pulling the text block in April 1994 in preparation for the production of the 1995 Yushodo Company facsimile, Anthony Cains carried out a thorough examination of the manuscript’s materials and structures. In the process he was able to determine that the overcover of the original binding was “a white tawed leather, we think sheepskin, with its grain surface stained with an organic red dye.” This inference derives from a fragment of material discovered “in the pocket area of the lower board…a pink-stained piece of leather” (Cains 1996, p. 145). It is probable, then, that the original cover was pink. A subsequent binding of 1802, referred to by Manly-Rickert (1:149), was replaced in 1911 (when the Manchester facsimile was made) by a green morocco Revière & Son binding, with the Egerton arms stamped in gold, front cover.
After the completion of photography for the facsimile, repairs were carried out. The text block was then sewn on seven double-cords, laced to quarter-sawn oak boards, and covered with white-tawed calf, with the entire process completed in October 1995 (Cains 1995; Cains 1996).

HISTORY:
Date:
1400-1412?note
Language: 
See Scribe B=Adam Pynkhurst: Language
Provenance:
Doyle has noted the motto of the Paston family, “[i]n a hand certainly of the fifteenth century and probably of the first half, on f. i verso and again on vii verso of the ruled medieval flyleaves, “demeuz enmeuz,” i.e. ”de mieux en mieux’” (1983, p. 172, n. 21; see also Hanna 1989, p. 1, who records an additional occurrence of the motto on fol. iir). The second item listed above under Contents, “A Ballad on the House of Vere,” is written in honor of the de Vere family, who had close associations with the Pastons in the fifteenth century, and Earl John de Vere had as guardians during his minority Thomas Beaufort (1417-1426) and John, Duke of Bedford, both of whom were intimates of Thomas Chaucer (Hanna 1989, p. 1; David 1995, 311-13; Hanna and Edwards 1996).
On fol. iv are the following: “Robertus drury miles: William drury miles: domina Jarmin. domina Jarningam. dommina Alington.” Manly-Rickert identify these as being in reference to “Sir Robert Drury (d. 1536) of Hawsted (Suffolk), near Bury St. Edmunds, his sons William and Robert, and his three daughters: Anna, married to George Waldegrave (d. 1528), and then to Sir Thomas Jermyn; Bridget, married to Sir John Jernyngham (Jernegan, of Somerleyton); and Ursula (d.1521), married to Sir Giles Alington” (1:152-153). Drury was “was the chief steward of John de Vere, thirteenth earl of Oxford, and also one of his feoffees” (DNB). Also on fol. iv are the following, in four different hands: “Margery”; “Margery seynt Joh[n] ys A shrew”; “Edwarde Waldegrave”; and “Thomas . Calthorpp. of.” George Waldegrave had a niece Margery, who married John St. John, of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, and there was a Thomas Calthorpe (d. 1559) “who was great-nephew of the first Sir Robert Drury’s first wife, who was Anna, daughter of Sir William Calthorpe of Norwich (d.1494)” (1:153).
On fol. iir, at the top, are four lines of verse (sixteenth-century): “take thou this treatise thi sinne therin to vse | to thende thou truly taste thes treasures tobteyne | trifle not in trauaylin thi time for to abvse | take and tye but turne and try thi purpose tattayne.” Another hand writes “ffor of all Tresure | Learnynge is the flower” (twice). The pressmark “Q:3” is written at the top right “in the hand of John Egerton (1579-1649), 1st Earl of Bridgewater, corrected by John Egerton (1622-86), 2nd Earl of Bridgewater to ”Q.3/3’” (Dutschke 1:50). Several names from fol. iv recur here: “D[omi]na Jernegan” (twice); “Joh Jernegan”; “D[omi]na Alington.” “1 DVRVM 5 PATI 68 | R North” occurs in the same hand that signs the verses on other fly leaves (the motto, repeated on fol. ivv, “was a personal motto of Roger Lord North” [Manly-Rickert 1:155]). Also on this folio is “p[er] me Thomam | Badbeye” and the monogram “HD.” Upside-down on fol. iir is “Rycher Challes”; this recurs at the foot of fol. 229v, also upside-down. On fol. ivr, at the end of “A Ballad on the House of Vere,” is “p[er]; Rotheley.” On fol. ivv is “Margery Seynt Iohn | Margery.”
On the recto of the blank folio left after CkT (fol. 48) is a quotation from Virgil’s Georgics (for a transcription see David 1995, p. 318) and in the same hand: “John Neue de oxenborowe in comt’ | norff’ salutem p[ro]cipe qd [et] c[etera].” On the same page is “dum sumus in mundo viuamus [cor]de Iocundo Amen ffinis quod | Willm Sayer” (the latter repeated on fol. 108r). On fol. 54r is a very faint inscription, read by Dutschke as “”Thome R〈?〉dell 〈?〉nold Gregorye Nycholas Arnold’” (1:50). Opposite V 1338, on fol. 130r is the inscription “per me henricum Payne,” identified by Manly-Rickert as “Henry Payne of Nowton, near Hawsted” (d. July 25, 1568), who had business dealings with the Drurys and who left to “Sir Giles Alington, grandson of Ursula Drury and her husband, “the beste geldyng he will choise of eny that I haue And also my Chaucer written in vellum and illumyned wt golde” (1:153). On fol. 169v is “Willem [?] dathe.” Next to the portrait of the Nun’s Priest is the name “Robt Nytipole.”
On fol. vr, after some Latin verses, is “By me Iohn | Hedgeman.” This name also appears on fol. vv (“Per me Ioh[an]em Hedgemann”), fol. 64r, and can be made out on fol. 175r, along with the additional information gleaned by Manly-Rickert with the aid of ultra-violet light: “of Hawkedoun (cf. “hocden” in Ad³) in the Countie of Suff” (1:155).note On fol. vir is draft of a note: “Thoms Newman yeve these with my hartie comendacions,” with the rest smudged but perhaps holding the signature of “William Denniston[?]” (according to Manly-Rickert, pp. 154-5). At the top of fol. viv is “Edmond Bedingfelde esquier…at wighton.” Fol. viir has attracted several English verses. In the middle of the page is “let vs make mere whille we be here | for in hell is very small chere.” At the bottom is “ffayre speche in precence | with good report in absence | and manners in felawshippe | obtayneth great freindshippe | what so euer the aylis | behaue the well alway | for whan lordship | faylis | goodfeloship [?]semys away.” Beside this is the monogram “EVR” (cf. the same monogram next to the Rotheley poem on fol. ivr).
The four sets of verses on the front and back flies connect the MS’s ownership with Roger Lord North (d. 1600), from whom El evidently passed to Sir Thomas Egerton. Egerton’s son became the first Earl of Bridgewater. Henry Edwards Huntington purchased the Bridgewater Library on February 27, 1917 for one million dollars (Thorpe 1974, p. 13).
An antipapist has erased “popes” at VI 342 (fol. 136v) and VI 922 (fol. 142v), and “seint Thomas” at I 3461 (fol. 37r). All have been restored by a modern hand.

References:
Anon. Review of the 1911 Facsimile. Athenaeum 4373 (19 August 1911): 210-11. 
Benson, Larry D. “The Order of The Canterbury Tales.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 3 (1981): 77-117. 
Blake, Norman F. The Textual Tradition of the Canterbury Tales. London: Edward Arnold, 1985. 
Blake, Norman F. “The Ellesmere Text in Light of the Hengwrt Manuscript.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 205-24. 
Bowden, Betsy. “Visual Portraits of the Canterbury Pilgrims, 1484(?) to 1809.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 171-204. 
Caie, Graham D. “The Significance of the Early Manuscript Glosses (with Special Reference to the Wife of Bath’s Prologue).” Chaucer Review 10 (1975-76): 350-60. 
Caie, Graham D. “The Significance of Marginal Glosses in the Earliest Manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales.” In David Lyle Geffrey, ed. Chaucer and Scriptural Tradition. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1984. 75-88. 
Cains, Anthony G. “Summary of Anthony G. Cains’s Report.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 29-39. 
Cains, Anthony G. “The Bindings of the Ellesmere Chaucer.” In Seth Lerer, ed. Readings from the Margins: Textual Studies, Chaucer, and Medieval Literature. San Marino, Calif.: Huntington Library, 1996. 127-57. 
Campbell, Jackson J. “A New Troilus Fragment.” PMLA 73 (1958): 305-8. 
Cooper, Helen. “The Order of the Tales in the Ellesmere Manuscript.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 245-61. 
Cromie, H. Rhyme Index to the Ellesmere Manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Chaucer Society, Series 1, nos. 45, 46, 47. London: Trübner, 1875. 
David, Alfred. “The Ownership and Use of the Ellesmere Manuscript.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 307-26. 
Dean, James. “Dismantling the Canterbury Book.” PMLA 100 (1984): 746-82. 
Dean, James. Forum Reply to Charles A. Owen, Jr. PMLA 101 (1986): 252-3. 
De Ricci, Seymour, with the assistance of W. H. Wilson, Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada. New York: Bibliographical Society, 1935-37. 1:132-3
Doyle, A. I. “English Books In and Out of Court from Edward III to Henry VII.” In V. J. Scattergood and J. W. Sherbourne, eds. English Court Culture in the Later Middle Ages. London: Duckworth, 1983. 163-81. 
Doyle, A. I., and M. B. Parkes. “The Production of Copies of the Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century.” In Ed. M. B. Parkes and A. G. Watson, eds. Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts, and Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker. London: Scolar Press, 1978. 163-210. 
Doyle, A.I. “The Copyist of the Ellesmere Canterbury Tales.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. Ed. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 49-67. 
Dutschke, C. W. Guide to Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the Huntington Library. 2 vols. San Marino: Huntington Library, 1989. 1:41-50; 2:fig. 81.
The Ellesmere Chaucer Reproduced in Facsimile. 2 vols. Preface by Alix Egerton. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1911. 
Elliott, C. “ ‘The Reeve’s Prologue and Tale’ in the Ellesmere and Hengwrt Manuscripts.” Notes & Queries 209 (1964): 167-70. 
Emmerson, Richard K. “Text and Image in the Ellesmere Portraits of the Tale-Tellers.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 143-70. 
Everett, Dorothy. “Another Collation of the Ellesmere Manuscript of the ‘Canterbury Tales.’” Medium Ævum 1 (1932): 142-55. 
Fisher, John H. “Animadversions on the text of Chaucer, 1988.” Speculum 63 (1988): 779-93. 
Flügel, Ewald. “New Collation of the Ellesmere MS.” Anglia 30 (1907): 401-12.  
Frese, Dolores Warwick. An Ars Legendi for Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: Re-constructive Rereading. Gainsville: University of Florida Press, 1991. 
Furnivall, Frederick J., ed. The Ellesmere Manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Chaucer Society, Series 1, nos. 2, 8, 16, 26, 32, 38, 50, 70. London: Trübner, 1868-79. 
Furnivall, Frederick J., ed. Autotype Specimens of the Chief Chaucer MSS, Part IV. Chaucer Society, Series 1, no. 74. London: Trübner, 1885. [facsimile of fol. 57v]
Gaylord, Alan T. “Portrait of a Poet.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 121-42. 
Hammond, Eleanor P. Chaucer: A Bibliographical Manual. 1908; rpt. New York: Peter Smith, 1933.  195.
Hanna, Ralph III. introd. The Ellesmere Manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: A Working Facsimile. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1989. 1-15. 
Hanna, Ralph III. “(The) Editing (Of) the Ellesmere Text.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 225-43. 
Hanna, Ralph III, and A. S. G. Edwards. “Rotheley, the De Vere Circle, and the Ellesmere Chaucer.” In Seth Lerer, ed. Readings from the Margins: Textual Studies, Chaucer, and Medieval Literature. San Marino, Calif.: Huntington Library, 1996. 11-35. 
Hector, L. C. The Handwriting of English Documents. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1966. 
Horobin, Simon, and Linne R. Mooney. “A Piers Plowman Manuscript by the Hengwrt/Ellesmere Scribe and Its Implications for Standard English.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 26 (2004): 65-112. 
Kane, George. “‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Manuscripts: Texts and Critics.” In John V. Fleming and Thomas J. Heffernan, eds. Studies in the Age of Chaucer, Proceedings, No. 2 1986. 137-45. 
Kendrick, L. “The Canterbury Tales in the Context of Contemporary Vernacular Translations and Compilations.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 281-305. 
Killough, George B. “Punctuation and Caesura in Chaucer.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 4 (1982): 87-107. 
Lowe, E. A., W. Braxton Ross, Jr., and T. Julian Brown. Handwriting: Our Medieval Legacy. With transcriptions of facsimiles by W. Braxton Ross, Jr. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1969. pl. XX [reproduces fol. 153v].
Manly, John M., and Edith Rickert, eds. The Text of the Canterbury Tales: Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1940. 1:148-59; 1:565-7.
McCormick, Sir William and Janet E. Heseltine. The Manuscripts of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: A Critical Description of Their Contents. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933. 147-53.
Owen, Charles A., Jr. “A Note on the Ink in Some Chaucer Manuscripts.” Chaucer Newsletter 2.2 (1980): 14. 
Owen, Charles A., Jr. “The Alternative Reading of The Canterbury Tales: Chaucer’s Text and the Early Manuscripts.” PMLA 97 (1982): 237-50. 
Owen, Charles A., Jr. Forum Response to James Dean’s “Dismantling the Canterbury Book” PMLA 101 (1986): 251-52. 
Owen, Charles A., Jr. “Pre-1450 Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales: Relationships and Significance.” Chaucer Review 23 (1988): 1-29; 95-116. 
Owen, Charles A., Jr. The Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1991. 
Parkes, M. B. “The Planning and Construction of the Ellesmere Manuscript.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 41-7. 
Pearsall, Derek. “The Ellesmere Chaucer and Contemporary English Literary Manuscripts.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 263-80. 
Petti, Anthony G. English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1977. p. 47, pl. 3.
Piper, Edwin F. “The Miniatures of the Ellesmere Manuscript.” Philological Quarterly 3 (1924): 241-56 and eight plates. 
Piper, Edwin F. “The Royal Boar and the Ellesmere Chaucer.” Philological Quarterly 5 (1926): 330-40. 
Ramsey, Roy Vance. “The Hengwrt and Ellesmere Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales: Different Scribes.” Studies in Bibliography 35 (1982): 133-54. 
Ramsey, Roy Vance. “Paleography and Scribes of Shared Training.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 8 (1986): 107-44. 
Ransom, Daniel J. “Hengwrt, Ellesmere, and the Variorum Chaucer.” Chaucer Newsletter 8.2 (1986): 1-2. 
Samuels, M. L. “Chaucer’s Spelling.” Middle English Studies Presented to Norman Davis in Honour of his Seventieth Birthday. Ed. Douglas Gray and E. G. Stanley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. 17-37. Rpt. in The English of Chaucer and his Contemporaries: Essays by M. L. Samuels and J. J. Smith. Ed. J. J. Smith. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1988. 23-37. 
Samuels, M. L., and J. J. Smith. “The Language of Gower.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 82 (1981): 295-304. Rpt. in The English of Chaucer and his Contemporaries: Essays by M. L. Samuels and J. J. Smith. Ed. J. J. Smith. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1988. 13-22. 
Schulz, H. G. The Ellesmere Manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, 1966. 
Scott, Kathleen L. “An Hours and Psalter by Two Ellesmere Illuminators.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 87-119. 
Scott, Kathleen L. Later Gothic Manuscripts 1390-1490. 2 vols. Volume Six of A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles. Ed. J. J. G. Alexander. London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1996. 2:140-3 (No. 42); Plates 176-180 (Vol. 1).
Seymour, Michael C. “Manuscript Portraits of Chaucer and Hoccleve.” Burlington Magazine 124 (1982): 618-23. 
Seymour, Michael C. A Catalogue of Chaucer Manuscripts. Volume II, The Canterbury Tales. Aldershot and Brookfield: Scolar Press, 1997. 230-5.
Smith, Jeremy J. “The Language of the Ellesmere Manuscript.” In Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 69-86. 
Stemmler, Theo. The Ellesmere Miniatures of the Canterbury Pilgrims. 2nd ed. Poetria mediaevalis 2. Mannheim: English Department of the University of Mannheim, 1977. 
Stevens, Martin. “The Ellesmere Miniatures as Illustrations of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.” Studies in Iconography 7-8 (1981-2): 113-34. 
Stevens, Martin, and Daniel Woodward. “New Ellesmere Chaucer Facsimile Project.” Chaucer Newsletter 12.1 (1990): 1-3. 
Stevens, Martin, and Daniel Woodward. “The New Ellesmere Chaucer Facsimile Project.” Chaucer Newsletter 16.1 (1994): 1-2. 
Stevens, Martin, and Daniel Woodward, eds. The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. San Marino, CA & Tokyo: Huntington Library & Yushodo Co., Ltd., 1995. 
Tschann, Judith. “The Layout of Sir Thopas in the Ellesmere, Hengwrt, Cambridge Dd.4.24, and Cambridge Gg.4.27 Manuscripts.” Chaucer Review 20 (1985): 1-13. 
Thorpe, James. The Ellesmere Manuscript of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. San Marino, Ca.: The Huntington Library, 1974. 
Thorpe, James. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: The Ellesmere Manuscript. 2nd ed. San Marino, Ca.: The Huntington Library, 1978. 
Thorpe, James. “Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales: The Ellesmere Manuscript.” In Gifts of Genius: Treasures of the Huntington Library. San Marino, Ca.: The Huntington Library, 1981. 13-16. 
Todd, H. J. Illustrations of the Lives and Writings of Gower and Chaucer. (London, 1810). 128-32 and frontispiece.
Wallace, David. “Pilgrim Signs and the Ellesmere Chaucer.” Chaucer Newsletter 11.2 (1989): 1-3. 
Woodward, Daniel. “A Brief Progress Report: The New Ellesmere Chaucer Facsimile Project.” Chaucer Newsletter 14.2 (1992): 4. 
Woodward, Daniel, and Martin Stevens, eds. The New Ellesmere Chaucer Facsimile (of Huntington Library MS El 26 C9). Tokyo & San Marino, CA: Yushodo Co., Ltd. & Huntington Library Press, 1995. Many of the images from the facsimile are now available through the Digital Scriptoriumsite (http://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/dsheh/heh_brf?CallNumber=El+26+C+9).
Woodward, Daniel, and Martin Stevens, eds. The New Ellesmere Chaucer Monochromatic Facsimile (of Huntington Library MS El 26 C9). Tokyo & San Marino, CA: Yushodo Co., Ltd. & Huntington Library Press, 1997.